Like most people, I frequent my bank less and less. There is just not that much need to queue up and wait your turn to see a teller anymore. When I do go, it is for something specific that has to be done by a human. So my purpose is generally completely transaction oriented, and not that different from going to a fast food restaurant and ordering by numbers. Yet, I have noticed that the tellers try harder to find ways to engage, with some level of mandate to cross-sell or up-sell. And just coincidently I spoke to a friend who works the other side of the counter who reaffirmed that there is indeed quite a bit of pressure to meet quotas. Quite surprising on the level of focus that occurs here.

There is certainly nothing wrong with the intent to engage and cross-sell. But what the bank does not seem to recognize is that behavior of those of us in the queue is changing. Just because I am standing there in front of a teller does not mean that I am in a shopping or browsing mode. My focus is on the transaction. Getting it done quickly, efficiently, and correctly. My view of the teller is as a customer service representative, not so much as a sales representative. And the proficiency with which those transactions are executed has quite an impact on my customer experience. Needing to pay attention to a bunch of impromptu offers just does not do anything for it.

I was pleased to learn about the next generation of super ATMs that are slowly beginning to be deployed in the US. As nicely presented in blog post by Research and Marketing Strategies, Inc, the super ATM will go beyond the capabilities of on-line banking and will take on an array of real teller transactions. Cashing checks, issuing money orders, printing checks, withdrawing funds in mixed denominations, to name a few. It all sounds so good. Just like regular ATMs, it will enable more hours of availability to teller-like transactions, and presumably more locations. And that is what steps it up a notch for the customer experience.

But what about that lost opportunity for engagement? That one where those avid human tellers are pressured to prey on. Well, it’s not much of a lost opportunity if those transaction-focused folks in the queue are not really, all that willing to give up their attention anyways. That teller trying to promote something new, just because it is the flavor of the month, is not that different than those website banner ads that we have learned to suppress so well.

As we have learned, the customer experience gets better when the banner ads get suppressed. We can just get on with what we are doing. Getting all of those routine things executed in a simple and efficient manner is what aggregates our overall customer experience into a positive one. It makes people happy to have all of those simple things executed, without any burdensome parts to the process. And as with any supplier-customer relationship, if the supplier can do the simple things well, it opens customers up to consider new services. But it’s not likely to happen in the equivalent of the teller line.

Cultivating that opportunity to engage more, means improving the customer experience across all those routine touch points. And since many of those are being digitally driven, it is here where the powers of demand generation could be better harnessed. With all of the regular digital interactions that take place, there is the real opportunity to build holistic views of customers; and to better determine how to seek engagement. And that digital tool set has to be deployed by a collaborative effort between both the IT and marketing departments. Only then can suppliers determine the preferred methods of engagement, and what has a chance of resonating.

No matter what you have to offer, no matter how great the benefits are, there is no consideration unless there is an effective channel to the customer. As simple as that sounds, it is key and ongoing preoccupation of the marketing effort to discover and optimize the channel mix for a specific offering.

At one time just prior to the launch of the original iPhone, a client of mine was developing video games for cell phones. Feature phones actually. Tremendous insight on their part. Cell phones were just starting to get powerful enough to have built-in cameras. And with that came displays that had utility for simple video games. Of course, we are well past the point of insight now. That is, with everyone carrying a phone around, there were going to be dead times where the owner was idle. Bored even. It seemed that simple video games on the phone would have a draw. And so this small bootstrapped company of enterprising pioneers, worked tirelessly to rapidly put out new titles. Unfortunately, they reminded me somewhat of starving artists.

Great talent. Great products. But the channel to the customer needed to pass through the deepest fog that existed. And the name of that fog was Rogers Communications. You see, the path to the customer was over the cellular network. At the time, game titles were purchased from the cellular service provider and downloaded wirelessly directly to the handset. Of course, this had the makings of an ideal, direct-to-the-customer distribution channel. Except for one fact. The cellular service provider had zero interest in reaching the customer. Although they had a direct channel to the customer, the navigation from the handset to reach the game site was impossible to find. I had tried independently for quite some time, until I finally had to relent and be shown how to get there.

So it had all the makings of an ideal channel, delivering to an ideal customer base, who unknowingly was quite ready to fill in that idle time with something rather light, and engaging. But unfortunately, that ideal channel was like going through a fog in the middle of the night, while passing through some unlit back alley. When the iPhone emerged, it was no surprise that developers for phone apps stampeded to develop for this platform. Besides the attraction of the hardware itself, the channel opportunity was a total contrast to the status quo. Apple believed in the value of the apps. At the time, they had already demonstrated huge success with iTunes and the App Store was going to get the same type of promotion. Apple was in fact a channel partner who truly enabled that connection to the customer.

Learning about and understanding the dynamics within each of the channels is certainly as tantamount as the benefits that your product offering delivers. And channel partners can be either enabling or disabling to the process of connecting with the customers. It all needs to be understood in order to derive and maintain the channel mix that is best for you. Otherwise, you could have an ideal channel, but it feels like quicksand.

So how many x86 instructions are there anyways?

This was a recent topic on of the Google Groups that caught my attention, if for no other reason but to be a bit nostalgic. As you might expect, it is not that easy of a question to answer. Part of the fun in reading through the chatter was the reveal that it didn’t really matter how many instructions there were. From the genesis of the x86 architecture, the instructions have evolved along with new capabilities in the processing power of the hardware. And so, new instructions were regularly created in order to enable the hardware to perform operations more effectively.

In reality though, things get to a point where the benefit of some instructions becomes marginal or of value to only specific types of applications. As someone on the forum pointed out, compilers use a much smaller subset in the compilation task. Only 30% of the instruction set in fact. Clearly it highlights the fact that you can develop a higher degree of proficiency by concentrating on the subset that matters most. As another poster commented, it would be nice to have compiler for video drivers, a compiler for math software, and so on. Again, highlighting the benefit of picking the subset that matters to the task.

And so it is with the tool set for demand generation. The tool set is growing by leaps and bounds. Of course, trying to keep up with the pace at which the world is being digitized. And here is where we can take our lesson from the development arena. There are more tools than we can use. The key is to harvest the subset that is most effective for you, and that you can develop the required proficiency.

Marketing Automation software has quite a luster about it. And with that comes the attraction to be able to mechanize so much. To do more. To do it better. And to be able to efficiently reach your target market. But as has been pointed out by many independent marketing professionals, you need to get the process developed before you can get to the automation stage. And when you are ready for automation, it still does not happen automatically. At a minimum, you need a dedicated resource to keep the engine stoked. That is, at least one dedicated employee.

Of course, it is a natural tendency to go for the gusto. Which in this context means the tendency to dive right to specific tactics with unwavering focus. AdWords. Retargeting. Youtube. Blogging. But that unwavering focus on tactics may actually turn out to be a short sighted vision of what needs to be accomplished. Much akin to working with too large of an instruction set and not becoming proficient or effective with any subset.

Successful marketers today are the ones that have established clarity on the company’s goals and capabilities first. And have established comparable insights into their customer’s problem and behavior. This establishes the framework through which the marketing tool set can be put together. All of the tactics need to work together as a tool chain, to complete the objective as a whole. Adding a tool is always about whether it fits with delivering your message to your customer. Otherwise, you may be succeeding with the individual tactics; surrounding yourself with an unwelcome lot; and asking yourself: “Who are these leads anyways?”.

One of the things that I learned early when I first started my career in the semiconductor industry was the reference design. At the time modems were all the rage and I was working for a company that was late to the market with their modem chipset. In order to get some consideration and acceptance, the company designed a complete modem with their chipset. It was a reference design. Realistically, it was a completely cloneable product design. Anyone wanting to design, build and sell their own modem could source the exact bill of materials and be in the modem business. And in fact, that is what customers did.

In the electronics industry, reference designs are now all over the place. Whether it is graphic chips, or ARM chips, there is a reference design. From a marketing perspective, they are quite effective in that they provide a simple and well-defined starting point. The designer can start with something that works. And this removes that huge objection that roots itself around the uncertainty of whether the thing will work as advertised. A reference design removes that objection and permits a stronger starting engagement with the prospective customer.

Outside of the electronics industry, there is a wide assortment of vendors who endeavor to achieve the same effect. An out-of-the-box method to show something that is representative of the result that the customer will attain. Of course, in cases where it is just not an out-of-the-box type of solution, there is the reference customer. The reference customer is someone who has adopted the solution and has achieved the desired results. “Do for me what you did for them” is the stage that the new prospect will be most comfortable with.

When you are selling complex solutions, there is more than one way to implement, and there is more than one dependency on implementing that solution. A good understanding of the problem that you are solving is certainly a powerful way to get the attention of your target customer. But that by itself does not translate into real demand for your solution.

Real demand is created when your prospective buyers believe that you have a complete understanding of the problem that you are solving; and that you can provide a testament to the benefits that your solution will realize. This scenario trumps all guarantees. Guarantees by themselves are simply not as strong as the meaning of the word itself. They guarantee something, but never seem to account for the time, resources, or other opportunity costs borne by the customer. I am sure that you will find all those exclusions somewhere in the fine print.

Well you may say that you have that all covered nicely with professional sales reps. But the real challenge is to be able to effectively parlay these skills to the online channel. This is where the buying process begins more often than not. Whether your prospective buyers will order your solution through the web is really secondary. What they will do is go online to learn more about the problem that they are having. They will seek out how others are addressing the same type of situation. And if you can’t put that “reference design” forward in some form, don’t expect the phone to ring.

You might not get it right the first time.

Baseball batting averages are often quoted to highlight the fact that you will not hit it out of the park each time you are at bat. In fact you will have more missed swings, than home runs. It is no coincidence that Babe Ruth held both the career home run record for 39 years, as well as the career strike-out record for 29 years. And with that comes the irrefutable fact that this guy believed that he could make that connection, and that the result was worth the risk of the miss. But you have to keep working at it.

When it comes to demand generation for your business, it is no different. You have to keep swinging in order for your chances to improve. And it is those companies that continually look for ways to correct their swing that end up moving ahead. In the case of startup Wooly Pocket, they recount the fact that they completely re-did their website 4 times in the first 18 months, spending $7,000 the first time, $15,000 the second time, and so forth until they got it right. Now these guys were not hacks. One of the co-founders was in fact a business management consultant.

Another great example is from Neil Patel of KissMetrics who spent $252,000 on conversion rate optimization consultants. Interestingly, his effort also took place over an 18 month period. And again, Neil Patel is an established expert in digital marketing. So, not exactly someone who was making rookie mistakes. Rather, he was continually trying to better his swing, with a firm belief that he could make the connection.

Unfortunately, there are many businesses who have the potential to build a better pipeline. Yet, they are reluctant to keep swinging. It can be costly, and the learning process can be a bumpy ride. But the alternative of not swinging translates into an opportunity cost of not hitting enough. The key to the whole process is to apply enough analyses of the results, and make meaningful conclusions. It is key to answer the age old question: Are you doing the right things? Or are you just doing everything right?

Iteration is the key until you get it right. What you do first is not as critical as what you do second. And yet, there are countless businesses who have a “one and done” approach. They may invest good effort to create their website, and they are done. And the website remains there like a statue being weathered by the elements. It may have had good potential to generate new business at the start. But with inactivity and the passage of time, its potential to attract new business slides to the back of the bus.

To get it right, you must develop a marketing tempo that fits the constraints of your particular business and market. It is not a quick and easy process. It is more like a treadmill. And in an increasingly noisy world, now is not the time to make do with a one-and-done marketing approach, that just sits there with unquantified results.